A nightclub can have trained bartenders as well as written alcohol policies and a knowledgeable manager on every shift. These safeguards might look comforting when they are incorporated in an employee’s manual.
Imagine an evening on a Saturday that is crowded, with several bartenders serving the same number of patrons, while an employee on the floor manages an issue and customers are ordering drinks at various places. Who’s accountable for determining when anyone shouldn’t be drinking anymore?
This question can reveal more in a dram store lawsuit, other than the number of drinks that have been sold.
Overservice Investigations Begin With What Staff members might see
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether alcohol-related choices were consistent with recognized industry practices and the specific circumstances employees confronted.
The presence of alcohol in a person is not proof, on its own that the bartender noticed warning signs while serving. The investigation needs to consider the manner in which the customer behaved as well as the timing of service, the observations of staff and any evidence that is available.
Surveillance footage could reveal an inability to walk, odd movements, or interaction with employees. Statements from witnesses may provide more detail, even though their memories may differ. What’s most important to discern between is what investigators learned from an incident, and what staff should have known at that moment of the incident.
One tab doesn’t always mean One Drinker
Records of sales at the point of sale are helpful however, their interpretation requires experience in hospitality. A single customer might purchase several rounds for their friends. Bottle-service transactions can involve multiple people. Bartenders who are separate from each other can take orders without being aware that another employee is serving the order.
Alcohol experts are able to examine the amounts of alcohol consumed and the time it took to complete transactions and also surveillance records and information on staffing in order to develop a better service timeline.
The analysis could reveal instances when employees were able to intervene or detect that they were intoxicated. It also can reveal instances when the evidence is insufficient to determine who consumed particular beverages.
Training is only important when it’s on the ground
Although employee certifications are essential but they may not accurately reflect the way an establishment was run during a particular shift.
The investigation of whether the training is current, if employees understand intervention procedures and if managers reinforce the policies could be part of an investigation.
Preston Rideout is a seasoned hospitality professional who has more than three decades of expertise. This includes bartending, management and consulting on beverage programs.
Additionally, he holds 112 seller-server certificates covering 48 states and the District of Columbia, according to his professional qualifications.
The combination of these two lets him examine the level of training employees received as well as their operational choices. Bartenders, for example may be able recognize a behavior that is troubling, but not be provided with clear guidelines on how to report it or how to contact management. In the end, the level of supervision equally important as the employee’s actions.
The Insurance Investigation May Ask Similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. The terms may vary but the primary investigation is still about alcohol service, staff behavior, training, and supervision by management.
A thorough review may include incidents reports, written policies recordings of video and employee schedules. It could also include certification records, and deposition testimony. It’s not the expert’s duty to provide support to those who want them. It’s about describing what the evidence supports and to identify industry practices that are relevant, and acknowledge meaningful limitations.
The experience of the past helps explain the rationale that are behind the documents
Rideout has worked with plaintiffs as well as defendants in 11 states in the past to testify on alcohol-service, hospitality and other aspects.
His analysis addresses bars, nightclubs, restaurants resorts, casinos, and other hospitality establishments that have alcohol services as part of daily operations. Each environment is unique with regard to staffing and issues with supervision.
The bartender who works in a small dining room in a restaurant may be able to see different aspects of the patrons than a nightclub worker working at a bustling service station. Understanding these differences can help place the data in its proper operational context.
Reliable opinions won’t fill holes with assumptions
Dram shop laws differ by regions. Expert opinions from experts in operations should not be mistaken for an official decision. The most thorough analysis should explain how the employees acted, which recognized service practices were required, and what conclusions are based on the evidence.
Sometimes, the records show deviations from established procedures. They could also reveal that the employee was following proper methods or did not respond to crucial questions.
This distinction is essential for lawyers who are evaluating claims involving alcohol. A good expert opinion does more than merely describe the situation. It helps the court understand what was happening inside the establishment before the evening was over.